Members of the National Assembly needed weapons to fight against the king. They stole thousands of guns and cannons, but they still needed the gunpowder to use them. They knew they could find gunpowder at the Bastille. The Bastille was a prison in Paris, but at this time it had only a few prisoners. More importantly, the National Assembly considered the prison to be a symbol of royal power. On July 14, 1789, the National Assembly attacked the prison. This historic event was called the Storming of the Bastille. At first, the National Assembly crowd tried to negotiate with Bernard-René de Launay, the military governor of the prison. But when the negotiations weren't going fast enough, the crowd turned into a violent mob. The guards of the Bastille opened fire on the mob, and over 100 people died. Outnumbered, Launay and his men raised a white flag and surrendered the Bastille to the revolutionaries. The people of the National Assembly walked away victorious. With the bloody terrors of the fight still ahead, their spirits were high. The French had no idea how challenging freedom would prove to be. The French celebrate their independence on the Fourteenth of July, Bastille Day. Why did the National Assembly go to the Bastille?
A to search for guns and cannons
B to find gunpowder
C to kill the guards
D to free the prisoners

i think the answer is true

c is the answer for this

american political culture includes a plenty of focus views and preferences. not all westerns experience the same opinions, of course, but the large preponderance promises to these general ideas, including equality, justice, freedom, individualism, integrity, and difference.

the united states is a democratic republic. residents elect representatives to governmental, nation, and local administration; those deputies create the regulations that command u.s. community. although emptiness in u.s. law needs it, in usage, the administrative system is ruled by executive factions.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.